The IPCC issued its fourth assessment report (AR4) in 2007, updated for the Copenhagen conference in 2009.

This report raised a fire storm of criticism which elicited only a feeble response. As a result the IPCC's credibility has been seriously damaged. Will the new "AR5" report correct the faults of its predecessors?

On December 12, 2011 documents purporting to be the "Zero Order Draft" of the WG1 (Working Group 1) committee was published on the Internet. Less than 48 hours later the site went dead. Fortunately, most of the files were recoverable. If you have any of the missing files, please send a copy to

Organizations that receive government funding for climate research are surprisingly reluctant to have any public scrutiny or input. For example, the University of Virginia, Penn State and the University of East Anglia are using the courts to block disclosure of information relating to work paid for by taxpayers. These organizations and many like them scorn sunshine laws, Freedom of Information Acts (FoIA) as well as the concept of accountabiliy. This strategy is working for the most part, backed up as it is by a string of disgraceful "Investigations".

The higher one goes in the government food chain the less interest in accountability. IPCC stands for "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change", which in the opinion of some makes it accountable solely to itself. How anyone can justify resisting disclosure of information paid for by taxpayers is a mystery, yet the recent "Climategate 2" disclosures and related leaks have been strongly resented in some quarters as evidenced by attempts to "Unring the Bell".

The heavy handed actions taken against "Tallbloke" and others may be attempts to intimidate people who want to lift the curtain that hides the Wizards of Climate Science from Dorothy and Toto.